Ajay Tandan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3316 Chatt

                                                                                  NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   CRA No. 464 of 2020

   Ajay Tandan, S/o Gainda @ Gaindlal Tandan, aged about 24 Years, R/o Village
    Rapa, Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                           ----Appellant

                                         Versus

   State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kunda,
    District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

                                                                        ---- Respondent

25/11/2021 Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Adil Minhaj, G.A. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2020, application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 17.03.2020 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kabirdham, District Kabirdham,

C.G., in Sessions Trial No.24/2018, the appellant stands convicted

and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 458 of the Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for Penal Code three years and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further additional imprisonment for one month

Under Section 506-II of the Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for Penal Code three years and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further additional imprisonment for one month

Under Section 376 of Indian Penal Rigorous Imprisonment for ten Code years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further additional imprisonment for tw months

(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court

has not properly appreciated the overall evidence available on record

for holding the appellant guilty. He further submits that there are

major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take

some time. Therefore, the appellant be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes the bail

application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in

particular the deposition of prosecutrix where she has stated that the

incident took place in her house in which about 20-22 persons reside

but none for them has been examined by the prosecution, the

depositions of other witnesses, the detention period of the appellant,

who is 24 years old and that disposal of the appeal is likely to take

some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I

am of the opinion that present is a fit case to suspend the jail

sentence imposed upon the appellant and to release him on bail.

Accordingly, the application (I.A. No.01 of 2020) is allowed.

It is directed that the execution of substantive jail sentence

imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the

pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two

sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He

shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 16.02.2022 and

thereafter appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the

Registry and thereafter continue to appear before the trial Court on all

such dates as are given to him by the said Court till disposal of this

appeal.

List the case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

Gautam Chourdiya Judge

Akhilesh